9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed only by the Board not by the first respondent.this circular talks of an outer time limit for entertaining the refund application. When the circular states that a claim for refund will not be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which the claim is made, that will have to be given a strict application. HELD THAT:- We find the contentions of the learned standing counsel to be sustainable - we are not in a position to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. Also note that the first respondent has not at all taken note of the spirit of my order dated 12.06.2019 - if the petitioner was not liable to be pay any fringe benefit tax, then, the department ought to have refunded the same. The income tax department being an arm of the State is bound by the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the department is bound by the principles of fairness and reasonableness. As conscious that any taxing statute will have to be construed strictly and there is no scope for applying equitable principles. But the case on hand is not one of tax liability. As per the legal position that is presently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und is outside the ambit of FBT. That was in turn challenged by the department by filing Tax Case Appeal No.602 of 2017. The petitioner's counsel firmly states that no interim order in favour of the department was granted and it is still pending. Since by the time the petitioner filed their return for the assessment year 2007-08, they had not tasted success for the preceding assessment year, they chose to go by the stand taken by the department. They later filed revised return declaring the fringe benefit tax value of ₹ 7,75,33,846/- as per Section 115 WD(4) of the Income Tax Act on 29.02.2008. They also paid the fringe benefit tax for the said assessment year 2007-2008 to the extent of ₹ 2,02,48,171/-. 3.When the petitioner's appeal in ITA No.1639/Mds/2014 came to be allowed, the petitioner remembered that they had erroneously paid FBT for the year 2007-08. They therefore filed a revision under Section 264 of the Act before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy. The said revision petition was rejected as not maintainable vide order dated 19.03.2018. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed WP(MD)No.12595 of 2018. The said writ petition was allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board. 3.No condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made. This limit of six years shall be applicable to all authorities having powers to condone the delay as per the above prescribed monetary limits, including the Board. A condonation application should be disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by the competent authority, as far as possible. 4.In a case where refund claim has arisen consequent to a Court order, the period for which any such proceedings were pending before any Court of Law shall be ignored while calculating the said period of six years, provided such condonation application is filed within six months from the end of the month in which the Court order was issued or the end of financial year whichever is later. 5.The powers of acceptance/rejection of the application within the monetary limits delegated to the Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr.CsIT/CsIT in case of such claims will be subject to Following conditions: At the time of considering the case under Section 119(2)(b), it shall be ensured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the circular states that any claim of refund exceeding ₹ 50.00 lakhs shall be considered by the Board. He pointed out that this Court had invoked Section 119 of the Income Tax Act in favour of the petitioner. But then, the circular issued by the board circumscribes the power and jurisdiction of the first respondent in entertaining the claim of refund. The petitioner seeks refund to the tune of more than two crores. Therefore, according to him, if all all the claim could have been considered only by the Board not by the first respondent. He would also point out that this circular talks of an outer time limit for entertaining the refund application. When the circular states that a claim for refund will not be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which the claim is made, that will have to be given a strict application. 7.I find the contentions of the learned standing counsel to be sustainable. I am not in a position to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. But at the same time, I must note that the first respondent has not at all taken note of the spirit of my order dated 12.06.2019. I had stated that if the petitioner was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
